Ad description
A VOD ad, paid-for YouTube and TV ad for Innocent drinks, seen in May 2021:
a. The TV ad featured an animation in which characters sang a song with the lyrics: “We’re messing up the planet. We’re messing up real good. And filling up our bodies with more beige food than we should ...” The animation showed images of buildings and vehicles expelling pollutants, litter, dirty rivers and brown unappetising food. The song continued, “We’re messing around with nature, we’re messing up the sea …”, accompanied by images of litter being thrown into water, whilst a number of people and an otter sailed along the water in a boat. Just as the boat reached a waterfall, which it was about to sail over, the otter stopped it from moving and said, “Woah, what are we doing?”
One of the people in the boat, who was holding a guitar, said, “Singing a song about our impending doom.” The otter responded, “Yeah, and you’re egging them on with the …” and the man with the guitar interrupted him and said with realisation “With the guitar and everything, I know.” The otter said, “Ok, let’s try this instead”, then produced a guitar and sang, “Let’s get fixing up the planet. Fix it up real good …” The animation changed to a greener and more colourful colour scheme, and included images of trees being planted. The song continued, “Be kinder to our bodies with nature’s tasty food …”, accompanied by images of fruit being squeezed into an Innocent drinks bottle.
The song concluded, “Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. Because there is no planet B. If we’re looking after nature she’ll be looking after me”, accompanied by images of people taking leisure in a lush green environment, with many of them alongside bottles of Innocent drinks. At the end of the ad, a voice-over stated, “Innocent. Little drinks with big dreams for a healthier planet.”
b. The paid-for Youtube ad included the same content as ad (a) except that the scene that featured the otter responding to “Singing a song about our impending doom” differed. In that version, the otter responded, “OK that’s mad” to which the man with the guitar responded, “It is a bit isn’t it?” The otter responded, “Let’s try this instead.” The rest of the ad was the same as ad (a)
c. The VOD ad included the same content as ad (b).
Issue
Twenty-six complainants, one of who identified themselves as representing Plastics Rebellion, challenged whether the ad exaggerated the total environmental benefit of the products and was therefore misleading.Response
Innocent Ltd responded that the ad set out a purpose-led message, which invited consumers to join in on its journey of working towards a healthier planet. They said that it had environmental credentials, which gave it the standing to make that invitation. However, there was no suggestion in the ad through statements or imagery, that purchasing Innocent products themselves would lead to a positive environmental impact. They said that were the complaint to be upheld, the effect may be to stifle other brands and manufacturers from taking steps towards and communicating information about positive environmental actions they were taking.
With regard to the content of the ad itself, the only claim that they were making was “be kinder to our bodies with nature’s tasty food”. They said that the ad was a call to action, asking for their drinkers to join them in making changes happen and which was demonstrated by the change of leadership from the man to the otter. They highlighted that the Innocent branding was used sparingly throughout the ad, and the Innocent logo itself did not appear in the context of purchasable Innocent products. The Innocent smoothie bottle did appear, but only in scenes that demonstrated that Innocent was made using ingredients made from nature.
Innocent said that the words and imagery of the ad sought to encourage recycling, both generally (by showing bouncing commonly recyclable receptacles from umbrellas into a recycling bin) and specifically in relation to innocent products (by showing a person dressed in a bottle costume, with the innocent logo, standing next to a recycling bin).
Although Innocent considered that the ad did not make a specific environmental claim, they provided substantiation to support their environmental ambitions, which they considered granted them the credentials to make claims about their ambitions. Innocent stated that they were a “B Corp”, which was a certification granted to some companies by the organisation B Lab to companies that demonstrated a high social and environmental performance. Innocent said that they had committed to being carbon neutral by 2030, and had opened a carbon-neutral factory that ran on renewable energy and a cleaning system that reduced water usage by 75%. Innocent said that the end of the ad included the text “Find out more – innocentdrinks.co.uk”. They said that consumers who chose to look at the website after viewing the ad would find information about their various sustainability schemes.
With regards to their use of single-use plastics, Innocent said that the ad did not make claims that their use was better than other forms of packaging, and instead sought to show that recycling was better than throwing away. They said that the ad contrasted images of plastic in the water with a world in green where plastic was recycled. They said that their focus as a company was on using the minimum amount of plastic whilst also supporting recycling and their ambition was to recycle 70% of their bottles by 2023. They said that was to be achieved through education and awareness, lobbying for better recycling and deposit return schemes. They also said that they were working on developing more sustainable packaging.Innocent considered that, aside from their credentials as a B Corp, guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority allowed for companies to tell people about their dreams and aspirations for environmental change. Innocent chose to do that in a light-hearted and engaging way in the ad. Innocent highlighted sections of the Guidance which allowed that “Wider environmental goals of the business should also be clearly distinguished from product-specific claims" and that “Claims about a business’s environmental ambitions must also be in proportion to its actual efforts. They are less likely to be misleading when they are based on specific, shorter term and measurable commitments the business is actively working towards." They considered that, because the ad did not make a product-specific claim, but rather a statement about their wider environmental goals, and because they were able to support their environmental ambitions with evidence, the ad did not mislead as to the total environmental benefit of their products.
Clearcast responded, in relation to ad (a), that the ad did not make any statements that exaggerated the environmental benefits or actions of Innocent’s products or the company. They said that the first section - including the statements “We’re messing up the planet. We’re messing up real good. And filling up our bodies with more beige food than we should ...”; “We’re messing around with nature … We’re messing up the sea …” - were generally accepted claims and referred to the overall state of the planet, processed food and the effect humans were having on nature. They said that the next element of the ad, which included the “Let’s get fixing up the planet. Fix it up real good …”; “Be kinder to our bodies with nature’s tasty food …”, would be understood as a plea to viewers to try and turn around the damage that had been done, aligned with the efforts that Innocent were themselves making, and to eat healthier foods.
Clearcast said that they had requested evidence to support the claim “Reduce, re-use, recycle” which they viewed as a call to action. They said that Innocent had outlined their drive to sustainably source 100% of their ingredients, their plans to make every bottle that they made recyclable and to become carbon neutral by 2030. They believed the reference to dreams would be interpreted as aspirational and that the ad overall would be interpreted as an aspirational call to action to support a better planet in the future, rather than as making specific environmental claims about the products or the company.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP and BCAP Codes required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear. They also required that absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation, but that claims such as “greener” could be justified if the advertised product or service provided a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser’s previous product or service or competitor products or services and the basis of the comparison was clear. The Codes also said that claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the ad stated otherwise.
The ASA considered that ads (a), (b) and (c) all drew a strong association between Innocent Drinks and a positive impact on the environment.
We acknowledged that the ad contained aspirational messaging, including imagery of people recycling, choosing natural foods and choosing to “reduce, reuse recycle”, the final line “Little drinks with big dreams for a healthier planet” and a link to the Innocent website for more information, and we considered that some consumers would interpret the ad simply to mean that Innocent had made an aspirational commitment to doing their part to do better for the environment, or that the ad was a call to action for everyone more generally to do better for the planet.
However, we considered that many consumers would interpret the overall presentation of the ad to mean that purchasing Innocent products was a choice which would have a positive environmental impact. The ad firstly presented a depiction of a damaged planet and brown food. It then switched to imagery of the planet being ‘fixed up’ whilst Innocent drinks are being consumed alongside images of Innocent products, depicting people and animals relaxing in a green environment. We considered that this implied there was a direct association between choosing Innocent drinks and taking positive action to help the environment. This was reinforced by the lyrics “Let’s get fixing up the planet. Fix it up real good …” and “Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. Because there is no planet B. If we’re looking after nature she’ll be looking after me”, which we considered would be interpreted as a claim that purchasing Innocent products was making an active choice to reduce, re-use and recycle, and was more broadly, a claim that Innocent was environmentally friendly and that purchasing their products had environmental benefits which would help ‘fix up the planet’.
Because we considered that the ads would be understood to mean that Innocent was environmentally friendly and that purchasing their products had environmental benefits, we needed to see evidence that was the case. Although we acknowledged that Innocent were undertaking various actions which were aimed at reducing the environmental impact of their products, that did not demonstrate that their products had a net positive environmental impact over their full lifecycles. We also noted that their drinks bottles included non-recycled plastic and that the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing of those materials in order to produce the bottle would have a negative impact on the environment.
Because the ads implied that purchasing Innocent products was a choice which would have a positive environmental impact when that was not the case we concluded that the ads were misleading.
Ad (a) breached BCAP Code
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
2).
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
9.2
9.2
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
9.3
9.3
The meaning of all terms used in advertisements must be clear to consumers.
and
9.4
9.4
Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product or service provides a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser's previous product or service or competitor products or services and the basis of the comparison is clear.
(Environmental claims).
Ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
2).
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Advertisements must not falsely imply that the advertiser is acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession. Advertisements must make clear their commercial intent, if that is not obvious from the context.
(Substantiation),
11.1
11.1
Radio Central Copy Clearance – Radio broadcasters must ensure advertisements subject to this section are centrally cleared.
11.2
11.2
If they are necessary for the assessment of claims, broadcasters must, before the advertisement is broadcast, obtain generally accepted scientific evidence and independent expert advice.
and11.3 (Environmental claims).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Innocent Ltd to ensure that future ads, which made environmental claims made clear the basis of those claims. We also told Innocent to ensure that their ads did not mislead as to the total environmental benefit of their products and that environmental claims were based on the full lifecycle of the products, unless stated otherwise.
BCAP Code
3.1 3.12 3.2 3.9 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 3.1 3.3 3.7 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 3.11
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.1 3.3 3.7 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 3.11
